Barts Health NHS Trust
Newham University Hospital
Quality report
Glen Road, Plaistow, London, E13 8SL
Telephone: 020 7476 4000 www.bartshealth.nhs.uk
Date of inspection visit: 5-6, 11 and 14 November 2013 Date of publication: Janaury 2014
Newham University Hospital is in Plaistow, East London, and serves the people of Newham and other areas. It provides a full range of inpatient, outpatient and day care services as well as maternity and accident and emergency departments. It also has a dedicated stroke unit for rehabilitation following initial urgent treatment. The area the hospital serves has the third most deprived local authority (out of 326 local authorities) and has been identified as one of the top 50 most deprived areas in the country.
Newham University Hospital is part of Barts Health NHS Trust (the trust). Barts Health is the largest NHS trust in England. It has a turnover of £1.25 billion, serves 2.5 million people and employs over 14,000 staff. The trust comprises 11 registered Care Quality Commission (CQC) locations, including six primary hospital sites in east and north east London (Mile End Hospital, Newham University Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, the London Chest Hospital, the Royal London Hospital and Whipps Cross University Hospital) as well as five other smaller locations.
CQC has inspected Newham University Hospital twice since it became part of Barts Health on 1 April 2012.
Our most recent inspection was in June 2013, when we visited the stroke ward and an elderly ward to check that the trust had taken action to address issues identified in August 2012. We issued two compliance actions and asked the trust to provide us with an action plan showing how they would address the shortfalls. As part of this November 2013 inspection, we assessed whether the trust had addressed the shortfalls, and we took a broader look at the quality of care and treatment in a number of departments to see if the hospital was safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. Our inspection team included CQC inspectors and analysts, doctors, nurses, midwives, allied health
professionals, patient ‘Experts by Experience’ and senior NHS managers. We spent two days visiting the hospital. We spoke with patients and their relatives, carers and friends and staff. We observed care and inspected the hospital environment and equipment. We held a listening event in Stratford Town Hall to hear directly from people about their experiences of care. Prior to the inspection, we also spoke with local bodies, such as clinical commissioning groups, local councils and Healthwatch.
We always ask the following five questions of services.
The five questions we ask about hospitals and what we found
Are services safe?
Patients were protected from the risk of infection and the hospital was clean. There was an emerging focus on safety and quality, and on developing a more robust safety culture across the organisation. However, governance systems were not embedded through the clinical academic group (CAG) structures in all clinical areas.
There were concerns that patients’ needs may not be met due to the hospital’s reliance on bank staff (hospital staff working overtime) and agency staff in some areas.
Improvements are needed as medicines were not being stored safely.
Risks may be increased for patients when staffing levels were not maintained and senior staff not available on site. There is also a potential increased risk to patients following the introduction of yellow wrist bands to identify two different risks: the presence of a swab to prevent bleeding following a surgical procedure, as well as a patient who is at risk of falls.
Are services effective?
National guidelines and best practice were followed but not always consistently and in full. Patient pathways
followed national guidance but on-site consultant support out of hours and at weekends did not follow professional guidance. The trust had taken steps to ensure departments were staffed appropriately and there was no evidence of an impact on patient care as a direct consequence. Junior staff in most specialities felt they were supported sufficiently by consultants.
We had concerns that children having orthopaedic surgery did not have input from the paediatric team and emergency surgical procedures on children under 10 were being carried out only occasionally. There were no pain protocols in use and children were not seen by the pain team.
Senior staff in medical services and surgical services were not available at weekends or at night in the Emergency Department, which could impact on decisions about patient care and treatment.
Are services caring?
We saw that staff were polite, kind and caring in their interactions with patients, visitors and colleagues. The majority of patients told us staff were caring and compassionate and they were treated with dignity and respect.
Are services responsive to people’s needs?
Patients told us that services in the hospital had usually responded to their needs. We had concerns about the lack of information for patients about being transferred between surgical wards and about discharge arrangements. Information for the public was provided in English and not available in other formats, but there was good access to translation services.
Are services well-led?
We saw there was good local leadership and staff were committed to providing safe and effective services. The trust had established a clinical management structure and governance arrangements. However, we were concerned about a lack of visible leadership and adequate communication from the trust’s board with staff to achieve effective working in clinical academic groups (CAGs) and communication upwards to the board.
Summary of findings
Accident and emergency
The majority of people were seen and treated within the national waiting time limit of four hours. Treatment plans were put in place for either discharge or transfer to inpatient services for further care and treatment. Senior nursing staff had specialist qualifications in treating adults and children within an emergency department setting. There were not enough consultants to provide night-time cover and this was managed via an on-call consultant rota. However, there was always senior medical cover provided by experienced doctors throughout the night.
People who walked into the department were initially seen by reception staff who referred them to either the emergency department (ED) or Urgent Care Centre (UCC) using set guidelines. This may present a risk as patients referred to the ED or UCC were not always seen within 15 minutes of arrival for further assessment. The assessment was completed by a registered nurse or doctor.
Medical care (including older people’s care)
Overall care was safe and effective, and staff worked hard to ensure patient safety. The majority of patients were complimentary about their care and told us that most staff were kind and caring. There were concerns that nursing staff were sometimes unable to meet people’s needs due to staff absence and bank staff (hospital staff working overtime in the trust) or agency staff cover could not be provided. Senior medical support to junior doctors at weekends was by a consultant on-call system and did not meet current professional guidance standards.
Quality and safety monitoring systems were in place and there was evidence that staff received some local feedback and escalated incidents appropriately. Staff were not aware of shared learning from incidents/investigations across the trust, which showed that the dissemination of learning across the organisation was not effective.
Staff were supported by their line managers and had mandatory training and annual appraisals. Staff morale was low following a recent staffing review but we were impressed that staff of all grades remained committed to providing good services to patients at Newham Hospital.
Surgery
Patients were treated in accordance with national guidance – for example, for joint replacement surgery. Risk management processes were in place and staff were aware of how to report incidents. Staff were aware of learning in their own area but they were not aware of learning from incidents across the wider trust.
We saw that safety checks in theatres followed the World Health Organisation (WHO) checklist. However, we observed that not all surgeons participated in the safety checks at appropriate times in the patient pathway of care in theatres. We also noted there was a lack of consultant engagement in theatre planning meetings and in CAG management and leadership roles. We found there was no consultant presence on site out of hours and at weekends. Patients were transferred to other wards and junior staff covered ‘outliers’ (patients on wards that are not the correct specialty for their needs) around the hospital which created additional workload and patient care and discharge could be adversely affected.
There were sufficient staff available to provide care to patients, but they did not always have the skills to meet all types of surgical needs on the inpatient ward.
Summary of findings
What we found about each of the main services in the hospital continued
Intensive/critical care
Patients received appropriate care and treatment in accordance with national guidelines. The critical care service performed as well as similar units across the country.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to provide 24-hour care, however, this was only achieved with overtime (bank) or agency staff. There were five unfilled nursing vacancies on the unit. Out of hours and at weekends there was no specialist critical care consultant cover and a consultant anaesthetist provided support to the unit.
There were delays in discharges from the unit due to the availability of beds elsewhere in the hospital. The unit was small and lacked facilities and storage. Patient privacy could be compromised due to the close proximity of the beds.
Maternity and family planning
The unit was refurbished two years ago and was bright, spacious and clean. The use of colour-coded signs helped people find their way around. There had been a number of ‘never events’ in the last year; these are events that are so serious they should never happen. The trust had undertaken much work on incident reporting, investigation, learning lessons and changing practice to prevent a recurrence.
There were a significant number of vacancies for midwives within the maternity service. Steps had been taken to address this, but staff expressed feeling “burnt out”.
There were appropriate arrangements for obtaining medicines but management, storage, prescription and
administration of these did not protect women against unsafe use. Although most staff were caring and respectful towards the women in their care, there were examples of women who had not consistently been treated with consideration and respect.
The service responded to patients’ needs and was well-led.
Children’s care
We had some concerns about the safety of children’s care. The orthopaedic surgeons were operating on children without input from the paediatric team. Emergency surgical procedures on children aged under 10 were being carried out only occasionally. Medicines were not being stored safely.
Children’s care was not always effective. We had some concerns that there were no pain protocols in place and the pain service did not see children.
Staff were caring and responded to children’s needs but there were no specific facilities for teenagers and the temporary accommodation used for children’s outpatients did not met the needs of the service.
We found the service was well-led. We were concerned that the trust only had one children’s governance manager and there was no liaison with other governance managers across the trust
Summary of findings
What we found about each of the main services in the hospital continued
End of life care
Staff were supported to provide safe and effective palliative and end of life care by the specialist palliative care team. Patients and relatives were supported during this phase of care and their wishes were taken into account and respected. There was good use of the ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ (DNAR) documentation and decisions were reviewed regularly. Interim guidance was available to replace the Liverpool Care Pathway (for delivery of end of life care) following its removal from use in 2013 according to national guidance.
Outpatients
The Outpatients department provided safe and effective care. However, the consultation, assessment and treatment process in clinics were not regularly monitored by the trust.
Staff were caring and responded to patients’ needs. We had some concerns about the leadership of the department. There was no evidence that performance was being checked on a daily basis and staff sometimes felt unsupported by their line manager.
Summary of findings
Newham University Hospital scored highly in the ‘Friends and Family’ test on the NHS Choices website with 291 out of 311 people who used the hospital being ‘likely’ or ‘extremely likely’ to recommend the hospital. However, individual comments on the same websitesuggest that the staff in maternity services are uncaring and rude. People who spoke to us during the inspection were broadly satisfied with most aspects of the care they received.
What people who use the hospital say
Areas for improvement
Action the trust MUST take to improve
• Ensure medicines and fluids for infusion are stored securely.
• Ensure that members of staff follow national guidance for the management of children undergoing surgery and that they do this sufficiently to maintain their expertise.
• To promote a safety culture, the hospital must improve the visibility of management and embed clinical academic group structures and processes.
Other areas where the trust could improve
• Consultant cover on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week in order to provide senior medical care and support for patients and staff.
• Increase the NHS Family and Friends survey response rate.
• Improve safety for patients by reducing reliance on bank and agency staff and improve critical care consultant cover on evenings and at weekends. • Address the lack of high dependency unit facilities
and the issue of patients being cared for in the coronary care unit, which are potentially comprising patients’ safety.
• Provide accessible information for patients for whom English is a second language.
• Implement pain protocols for children and ensure that children are seen by the pain team.
• To mitigate the risk of potential safeguarding issues, the hospital should consider providing a separate waiting area for children waiting to be seen in the Urgent Care Centre.
Our inspection team highlighted the following areas of good practice:
• Play leaders in the children’s service provided creative play opportunities for children to prepare them for surgery.
• The volunteer service had created a reminiscence room to provide a non-clinical environment for
patients with dementia, which was decorated and equipped with items from the past to stimulate their memories.
• The ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ (DNAR) forms were comprehensive and enabled medical staff to identify treatment and care options with patients.
Newham University Hospital
Detailed Findings
Why we carried out this
inspection
We chose to inspect Barts Health NHS Trust (the trust) as one of the CQC’s Chief Inspector of Hospitals’ new in-depth inspections. We are testing our new approach to inspections at 18 NHS trusts. We are keen to visit a range of different types of hospital, from those considered to be high risk to those where the risk of poor care is likely to be lower. After analysing the information that we held about Barts Health NHS Trust using our ‘intelligent monitoring’ system, which looks at a wide range of data,
How we carried out this
inspection
To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care, we always ask the following five questions of every service and provider:
• Is it safe? • Is it effective? • Is it caring?
• Is it responsive to people’s needs? • Is it well-led?
The inspection team always inspects the following core services at each inspection:
• Accident and emergency
• Medical Care (including older people’s care) • Surgery
• Intensive/critical care
• Maternity and family planning • Children’s care
• End of life care • Outpatients
Before visiting, we looked at information we held about the trust and also asked other organisations to share what they knew about it. The information was used to guide the work of the inspection team during the announced inspections on 5 and 6 November 2013. Two further unannounced inspections were carried out on 11 and 15 November 2013.
Our inspection team
Our inspection team for Barts Health NHS Trust was led by:
Chair: Dr Andy Mitchell, Medical Director (London
Region), NHS England Team Leader: Michele Golden, Compliance Manager, Care Quality Commission
Our inspection team at Newham University Hospital was led by:
Team Leader: Sue Walker, Compliance Inspector,
Care Quality Commission
Our inspection team included CQC inspectors and analysts, doctors, nurses, student nurses, allied health professionals, patient ‘experts by experience’ and senior NHS managers.
Services we looked at: Accident and emergency, Medical care (including older people’s care), Surgery,
Detailed findings
During the announced and unannounced inspections we: • Held six focus groups with different staff members as
well as patient representatives. • Held two drop-in sessions for staff.
• Held four listening events, one of which was specifically for Newham University Hospital at which people shared their experiences of the hospital.
• Looked at medical records.
• Observed how staff cared for people.
• Spoke with patients, family members and carers. • Spoke with staff at all levels from ward to board level. • Reviewed information provided by and requested from
the trust.
The team would like to thank everyone who spoke with us and attended the listening events, focus groups and drop-in sessions. We found everyone to be open and balanced when sharing their experiences and perceptions of the quality of care and treatment at the hospital.
Our findings
Patient safetyPatients told us they felt safe in the hospital and the majority had experienced good care. Comments from across services included: “The A&E doctor examined me thoroughly and told me they needed to carry out some tests, and I’m just waiting for the results.” In medicine they told us: “I can’t complain”; “they treat me well”. In surgery, patients told us: “I have always felt safe here, I can’t praise them [hospital staff] enough”; “I have had excellent care and feel safe”.
The trust was trying to promote a strong safety culture and this was seen to be developing but was not embedded. Staff were encouraged to report incidents and did so. Staff received feedback on incidents but this was not always consistent. Incidents were analysed locally and used to improve the quality and safety of services.
Serious incidents were reported to the National Reporting and Learning Service. The trust had reported six serious incidents classified as ‘Never Events ‘at Newham University Hospital in the last 12 months, five of which related to the retention of packing/swabs. Never Events are serious, largely preventable incidents that should not occur. The Never Events had been appropriately investigated to identify the cause of the error and the trust had taken action and implemented a new policy and identification system to alert staff. Unfortunately not all staff outside of maternity (where most of the events had occurred) were aware of the changes. We also found the same identification system (a yellow wrist band) was being used elsewhere in the trust to identify peple at risk of falling. The hospital did, at times, experience bed pressures and surgical patients were moved between the Gateway Surgical Centre and main hospital wards to create spare beds. This potentially increased the risks to patients as they did not always receive appropriate specialist care. The trust held daily bed/site management meetings to review the availability of beds and so that staff in all areas could identify ‘outlier’ and any operational issues that may have an impact on patients.
Medical staff handovers were scheduled twice a day, providing a detailed overview of patients admitted in the speciality ward. However, we did observe some medical staff arriving on the wards without attending the handover meeting and so they were not fully aware of changes in patients’ conditions or plan of care.
Patients who became critically ill were managed effectively by the critical care team. Staff used early warning systems to assess patients at risk and patients received timely intervention.
Staffing
We looked at staffing levels in all the areas visited. The trust had recently completed a review of nursing staff and had set ward levels based on the Royal College of Nursing guidelines. Staff told us they were, at times, understaffed, usually when an absence had occurred at short notice. There was a system for staff to request replacement or additional staff; however, staff reported frequent occasions when shifts were unfilled across the surgical and medical wards. There were vacancies on most wards that
Are services safe?
Summary of findings
Patients were protected from the risk of infection and the hospital was clean. There was an emerging focus on safety and quality, and on developing a more robust safety culture across the organisation. However, governance systems were not embedded through the clinical academic group (CAG) structures in all clinical areas.
There were concerns that patients’ needs may not be met due to the hospital’s reliance on bank staff (part-time workers or hospital staff working overtime) and agency staff in some areas.
Improvements are needed as medicines were not being stored safely.
Risks may be increased for patients when staffing levels were not maintained and senior staff not available on site. There is also a potential increased risk to patients following the introduction of yellow wrist bands to identify two different risks: the presence of a swab to prevent bleeding following a surgical procedure, as well as a patient who is at risk of falls.
Are services safe?
Junior doctors told us they were very well supported by their more senior colleagues but consultant presence out of hours and at weekends was through an on-call at home rota. Junior doctors reported that the majority of consultants were responsive and provided support but this was not the experience of some juniors in Surgery. The General Medical Council’s National Training Survey, completed by junior doctors in training, showed that they rated their workload and whether they felt forced to cope with clinical problems beyond their competence or experience to be ‘within expectations’.
Managing risk
The trust was managing patient safety risks. There were safety measures in place to monitor patient falls, development of pressure ulcers, blood clots in veins and catheter urinary tract infections. There was ward-based quality monitoring to improve patient safety and, where care was assessed to be falling below standards, remedial measures were implemented.
Medicines management
Medicines were prescribed and administered correctly. Medicines were not always securely stored and clinical rooms with stores of intravenous infusion fluids were left unlocked and doors were propped open. We observed cupboards where medication was stored left unlocked.
Cleanliness and hospital infections
Patients were protected from the risk of infection. The infection control rates for Clostridium difficle (C.difficile) and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Newham were within expectations. The hospital was clean and cleaners used appropriate equipment and followed cleaning schedules. Patients and visitors were provided with information about preventing infection and there was antibacterial hand gel available in all areas for patients, staff and visitors to use. We observed staff using personal protective equipment (such as gloves and aprons) and washing their hands in-between seeing patients. Patients were screened for infection on or before admission and side rooms were available to isolate patients with a spreadable infection.
Safeguarding patients
Staff were aware of and understood how to protect patients from abuse and restrictive practices. The majority of staff had attended safeguarding training to the
appropriate level. Procedures were safe and effective and especially robust in paediatrics.
Patient records
We reviewed patient records on every ward visited and the majority were adequately and appropriately completed. However, on one ward (Silvertown Ward) we observed point-of-care records, such as fluid balance charts and observation charts, were incomplete and not adequately maintained. We found one patient with dementia who did not have a care plan relevant to their diagnosed need. This put patients at risk of inappropriate or unsafe care.
Medical equipment
Most equipment in the hospital had been serviced and maintained. In one surgical ward there was an
outstanding repair request for a macerator (used for waste management) that had been out of use for three days. Emergency equipment was available in all areas and records showed that daily checks were carried out. This meant emergency equipment was available and ready for use.
Are services effective?
(for example, treatment is effective)
Our findings
Clinical management and guidelines
Patients received care according to national guidance. The trust used National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and professional guidelines. The trust participated in national audits and there were staff in place to ensure these were implemented and monitored. There were enhanced recovery models of care in surgery and pathways of care were seen in use in most areas to ensure patients received appropriate care and treatment to optimise their recovery. We observed multidisciplinary team working – for example, in the stroke unit, elderly care and end of life care.
Professional best practice guidance relating to the onsite availability of consultants at all times was not always followed. However, the majority of junior doctors felt adequately supported by their immediately senior colleagues and they had good access to on-call consultant advice.
Staff skills
Staff did have appropriate skills and training but there were concerns about the number of specialisms being admitted to one ward (Silvertown Ward). The trust supported staff to have the appropriate skills, knowledge and training. Staff attendance at training was monitored and reminders sent when an update was due. We saw records showing that the numbers of staff attending mandatory training had increased from August 2013.
Summary of findings
National guidelines and best practice were followed but not always consistently and in full. Patient pathways followed national guidance but on-site consultant support out of hours and at weekends did not follow professional guidance. The trust had taken steps to ensure departments were staffed appropriately and there was no evidence of an impact on patient care as a direct consequence. Junior staff in most specialities felt they were supported sufficiently by consultants.
We had concerns that children having orthopaedic surgery did not have input from the paediatric team and emergency surgical procedures on children under 10 were being carried out only occasionally. There were no pain protocols in use and children were not seen by the pain team.
Senior staff in medical services and surgical services were not available at weekends or at night in the Emergency Department, which could impact on decisions about patient care and treatment.
Are services caring?
Our findings
Patient feedbackThe majority of patients we spoke with in all wards and departments at the hospital told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Patients on the surgical wards told us, “All the staff are wonderful, I can’t thank them enough for the care they have given me” and, “The staff are worth their weight in gold”. These comments were echoed by patients on other wards, however, one person visiting the elderly care ward told us “... only XX listens to us, none of the others do. When we try to explain they just say ‘yes, yes, yes”. Another person at the listening event told us that, in their experience, staff were “rude” and answered their mobile phones while providing care.
Information on the NHS Choices website included a number of positive and negative comments. Feedback was acknowledged by the trust and people were offered further contact with a member of staff to discuss any problems they had experienced.
Patient treatment
Patients were supported to ensure their care needs were met. We saw patients had food and drink when they needed it. They were supported with their personal care and pain management. We saw examples of care rounds taking place in some wards to ensure patients’ needs were being met. Staff were observed to be kind, compassionate and caring. They were also honest about when the quality of care did not meet their standards.
Staffing levels
Nursing staff told us that sometimes there were not enough staff to deliver timely care to patients. The trust had systems in place to replace staff through bank (overtime) or agency staff. However, shifts were not always filled. A ‘bed management’ meeting was used to review staffing across the hospital and to move staff to provide cover if possible. We also saw that matrons based themselves on wards that were short of staff to assist.
End of life care
Patients at the end of life were being managed in accordance with interim guidance and the Liverpool Care Pathway was no longer in use, in line with national guidance.
Patient privacy and rights
Staff respected patients’ privacy and dignity and their right to be involved in decisions and make choices about the care and treatment.
Food and drink
Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their nutritional and religious and cultural needs. There were menus available and staff to help patients make appropriate choices. Patients gave mixed reviews about the quality of food – ranging from “satisfactory” to “not good enough”. We saw staff helping patients to eat and water was freely available and, in most cases, within reach of the person.
Summary of findings
We saw that staff were polite, kind and caring in their interactions with patients, visitors and colleagues. The majority of patients told us staff were caring and compassionate and they were treated with dignity and respect.
Are services responsive to people’s needs?
(for example, to feedback?)
Our findings
Patient feedbackPatients told us that services responded to their needs. They said they had been seen fairly promptly in the Emergency Department (ED) and Outpatients. Comments included: “I didn’t have to wait too long”. Several patients told us they were waiting for investigations, and one inpatient said, “I was told I’d have a scan at 8am, but it’s 10am now and I’m still waiting”.
At our listening event we heard that some patients had received good, prompt attention when admitted to the hospital as an emergency. We were also told there was good communication and coordination between the various medical teams involved in the person’s care. Information on NHS Choices website included a number of positive and negative comments. We also had people contact us using our Share Your Experience forms. Comments were mixed. Positive comments highlighted that staff were kind and caring and provided prompt attention. Negative comments related to staff attitude, care delivery issues for patients with dementia and waiting times experienced in the Emergency Department.
The trust used the NHS Friends and Family questionnaires to gather patient feedback and results were displayed in all areas. The information published on the NHS Choices website showed that the vast majority of people using the hospital would recommend it to people they knew.
Discharge of patients
The majority of patients were discharged appropriately. However, several patients on surgical wards told us they had not been given any information about when they were due to be discharged, and there was no information about discharge arrangements on their medical records.
Waiting times
Patient’s in the Emergency Department told us they were seen reasonably quickly, however, a few patients being treated in surgery said they had waited too long to be admitted for their procedure.
The hospital had met the national target and seen 95% of patients in ED within four hours of arrival. There were times when the department had fallen below the target and the number of people attending and availability of beds in the hospital had caused delays. The department had also met the 15-minute target for accepting handover of patients from ambulances and had experienced one breach of the target in the first six months of the year. There was an Urgent Care Centre (UCC) next to the Emergency Department (ED) which was run by another trust and patients for the UCC and ED sat together in the same waiting area. Waiting time information was displayed for ED but not for the UCC. Staff reported that patients did not know who was waiting to be seen in which service. Patients being seen earlier than those waiting could lead to tension between patients.
Outpatient care
Patients told us they were normally seen within 30 minutes of their appointments and staff kept them updated with the waiting time and reason for any delays.
The facilities in the temporary children’s outpatient building were not conducive to providing high standards of outpatient care.
Accessible information
Information was readily available in wards and
departments but only in English. Information could be produced in other languages. Patients we spoke with did not see this as an issue as they had relatives to help them. The hospital had a translation and advocacy service and the multi-ethnic workforce were able to speak several languages which patients valued.
Summary of findings
Patients told us that services in the hospital had usually responded to their needs. We had concerns about the lack of information for patients about being transferred between surgical wards and about discharge arrangements. Information for the public was provided in English and not available in other formats, but there was good access to translation services.
Are services well-led?
(for example, are they well-managed and do senior leaders listen,
learn and take appropriate action)
Our findings
LeadershipStaff told us they had access to good, local management and leadership. They said they usually felt supported and valued by their colleagues and direct line managers. There had been a recent staffing review, a process that was on-going. Staff morale was described as low and staff told us they thought the impact of the changes on service provision had not been properly assessed.
The CAG management structures were not operating effectively in all areas. Staff were not engaged with the trust leadership and the majority told us they worked for Newham Hospital not Barts Health NHS Trust. There was an obvious disconnect between staff working in the hospital and the senior management of the trust. There was little recognition of the trust Board members and senior leaders in the CAGs, suggesting that senior managers were not visible.
Managers in most areas had a good understanding of the performance of their wards and departments and most staff demonstrated a willingness to respond to change.
Managing quality and performance
The trust Board had established the CAGs and devolved the management for performance, quality and governance to the CAG leadership board. There was evidence that quality and performance monitoring data was reported at the CAG leadership meetings and senior managers in the hospital reported they attended.
We observed safety and quality of care was monitored and action taken in response to concerns at ward level. Staff’s understanding of the clinical governance framework, how risks were managed, controlled and mitigated against was variable. Communication of performance, quality and governance information was not consistent across all CAGs.
Summary of findings
We saw there was good local leadership and staff were committed to providing safe and effective services. The trust had established a clinical management structure and governance arrangements. However, we were concerned about a lack of visible leadership and adequate communication from the trust’s board with staff to achieve effective working in clinical academic groups (CAGs) and communication upwards to the board.
The implementation and monitoring of safety and quality systems was not embedded and sufficiently effective through the management structures and needed to improve in some areas.
Accident and emergency
Information about the service
The accident and emergency department (A&E) (known as the emergency department (ED)) is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is a designated major incident centre. The department sees approximately 137,000 patients each year. The department included a separate paediatric emergency department and eight beds as a clinical decision unit (CDU) and 17 beds as a medical assessment unit (MAU). The CDU is used for people at lower risk who may need further assessment or tests for up to a 12-hour period prior to either being admitted into hospital or discharged home.
People with minor injuries and ailments were seen in the Urgent Care Centre (UCC), which was co-located within the department but managed by another provider and therefore did not form part of this inspection process. We spoke with 23 patients and 20 staff including doctors, consultants, nurses, senior managers and four ambulance personnel. We observed care and treatment and looked at treatment records. We reviewed information from patient surveys and performance information about the trust. At our listening event, one person provided positive feedback about the care they had received at Newham A&E.
Summary of findings
The majority of people were seen and treated within the national waiting time limits of four hours. Treatment plans were put in place for either discharge or transfer to inpatient services for further care and treatment. Senior nursing staff had specialist qualifications in treating adults and children within an emergency department setting. There were not enough consultants to provide night-time cover and this was managed via an on-call consultant rota. However, there was always senior medical cover provided by experienced doctors throughout the night. People who walked into the department were initially seen by reception staff who referred them to either the emergency department (ED) or Urgent Care Centre (UCC) using set guidelines. This may present a risk as patients referred to the ED or UCC were not always seen within 15 minutes of arrival for further assessment. The assessment was completed by a registered nurse or doctor.
Accident and emergency
Are accident and emergency services safe?
Services were safe but there were issues that children were not segregated while waiting to be seen in the urgent care centre (UCC).
Patient safety
People who arrived by ambulance told us they felt safe while being treated in the department and that they were seen promptly. However, some people felt they were not always kept informed about the treatment they needed. People told us they felt staff knew what they were doing and were very good. One person said, “the doctor examined me thoroughly and told me they needed to carry out some tests, and I’m just waiting for the results”. Staff told us they felt supported to deliver safe and appropriate care. All new nurses and junior doctors were supported and supervised by either the practice development nurse or more senior medical and nursing staff. Support was provided until they were deemed competent to work independently and provide safe care. A new member of staff confirmed they had been given support by someone more senior and that there was an excellent training programme in place for all team members.
Caring for children
Staff had the appropriate qualifications to care for children in an emergency setting. All staff had qualifications in paediatric life support and two senior consultants had experience and specialist interests in caring for children. All children with life-threatening conditions were initially treated within the resuscitation room specially equipped for children.
There was a separate waiting area for children waiting to be seen by the paediatric ED staff. However, children waiting to be seen by UCC nurse practitioners were not segregated from other adult patients waiting to be seen, either in adult ED or as patients in the UCC. Staff we spoke with expressed their concerns about maintaining the safety of children in this area. Staff also reported that suggestions to address this had been made to the UCC provider but had not been acted on.
Staffing
The consultant team provided on-site medical cover during the week days and at weekends. There was a consultant on call at night and junior doctors were supported by sufficient numbers of middle-grade,
experienced doctors during the busy night shift. However, this could potentially place patients at risk during the night as there were insufficient consultants employed to provide continuous cover.
There were sufficient numbers of nursing staff with the appropriate qualifications to provide both senior and junior cover for the day and night shifts. Staffing numbers remained consistent over a 24-hour period. Staff had all received training regarding the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. The senior consultant was nominated as the department lead for safeguarding. Patients assessed as low risk were admitted to the 25-bed CDU/MAU for further observation. The unit was staffed by registered nurses and support workers. Medical cover was provided by the ED consultants for the CDU beds and they aimed to review patients within 12 hours of admission to the unit for either admission or discharge home. Medical cover for the remaining MAU beds was mostly provided by the physicians as well as the ED consultants. Patients told us that care was generally good but they were not always provided with information about their care.
Managing risks
There were systems in place to report and review incidents.
The environment
The department was new and the adult emergency department was divided into four main areas: the UCC for minor injuries; assessment/ triage area; major injuries or serious conditions; and the resuscitation room. The major treatment cubicles gave privacy to patients being examined and having further tests carried out, with good visibility for staff to maintain observations of all patients in that area.
Accident and emergency
Infection control
The emergency department was clean and tidy. We found there were sufficient sinks, towels and hand gel available for staff to use. Patient toilets were clean and soap and hand towels were available. Cleaning support was available at all times.
Are accident and emergency services
effective?
Patients were seen and treated effectively by appropriate staff.
Clinical management and guidelines
Patients received diagnostic tests promptly and treatment was not delayed. There were plans in place for discharge or transfer to specialist teams for further care and treatment. People told us they had not waited long periods for blood test results. One person said, “The doctor met the ambulance and I went into a cubicle and was treated quickly, I didn’t wait at all”. Some people told us that, although they were assessed quickly, they were not kept regularly informed about their treatment.
The ED had met national targets relating to patients being assessed, treated and admitted within four hours. Patients received care according to specific care pathways which were developed in line with national guidelines and best practice. The care pathways were consistently applied and updated with ongoing improvements and reflected guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other professional bodies. For example, the department demonstrated that they had improved the quality and safety of the management of patients with problems during pregnancy and patients with fractured hips. The department participated in national audits used by the College of Emergency Medicine (CEM) audits as well as the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). This ensured that patients with serious traumatic injuries were managed safely and effectively.
The department worked in partnership with other
professionals to ensure patients received appropriate care and support. There was support for referring patients with mental health issues by a psychiatric liaison team which was based in the department. The department and CDU also had access to social workers and physiotherapists to enable and support safe discharges for patients. GPs also worked in the department seven days a week to manage patients with conditions that would normally be treated in a primary care setting.
Staff skills
Senior nursing and medical staff working in the department had specific qualification in the treatment of emergency care. This included Advanced Life Support (ALS), Paediatric Life Support and Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS). However, some nursing staff told us they had not been able to secure funding for either the emergency care course or some of these additional specialist courses.
Are accident and emergency
services caring?
Patients received safe care from staff that were kind and caring.
Patient feedback
The majority of people we spoke with told us they had received good care from kind and caring staff. We observed staff responding quickly, professionally and politely to patients and visitors across all of the areas in ED. This included ambulance crews and other speciality teams visiting the department. Comments included: “Staff are very competent and have treated me with respect,” and, “I am happy with the day-to-day care I have received”. We saw some ‘thank you’ letters and cards the department had received which were very complimentary about the care and compassion people and relatives had received.
Accident and emergency
Some patients in all areas of the emergency departmentand the CDU commented that staff did not always keep them informed about delays in treatment, or when they were going to be discharged or moved to a ward. Some patients in the waiting area were not sure who they were waiting to see and how long the wait would be. The patient experience was reported to be generally good on the days we visited, although the response rates to the trust ‘Friends and Family’ questionnaires was comparatively low at 11.6% compared to the national average of 16.9%. Staff told us they were aware of the low response rate to the Friends and Family test and felt that some people were too unwell to complete the questionnaire when they were admitted to the emergency department.
Pain relief
Patients received pain relief at their initial assessment and then when required. We observed pain killers being dispensed to a patient in a safe manner at the initial assessment/triage. We did not see staff use a pain assessment tool to determine the patient’s level of pain. The department held a stock of simple medication, such as pain relief, for patients being discharged when the hospital pharmacy was closed. For patients whose first language was not English, or who had dementia, staff had access to advocates and interpreters. Some senior nurses who had undertaken specialist training were able to prescribe pain relief for patients to ensure there were no delays in the administration of medication. The paediatric ED used a specific tool for assessing and administering pain relief for children and staff told us this was considered a priority.
Privacy and dignity
The major injuries (majors) area had single cubicles that ensured patients’ privacy and dignity were maintained during examinations. We saw staff ensured they closed cubicle doors and knocked and waited prior to entering. Patients told us they felt staff respected them and treated them with kindness at all times. The department had a bereavement room where relatives could spend time with family members following an unexpected death.
Food and drink
Patients received adequate nutrition and hydration in the department. We saw patients being offered snacks and hot drinks. Staff told us they used the facilities on the CDU and could always make hot drinks and toast for people at any time of day.
Are accident and emergency services
responsive to people’s needs?
Services were responsive to patients and had established protocols to respond to emergency situations.
The ED had a major incident plan in place. We were told the plan had been reviewed and the department could respond quickly if needed. However, we were told by staff that the trust had not carried out a major incident practice exercise of the plan within the last three years to ensure the whole system could respond appropriately. The trust told us that an exercise was carried out in March 2012. Staff responded promptly to emergency situations. We observed several emergency situations following calls from the London Ambulance Service (LAS). Staff were dispatched to meet and treat the patients immediately. We confirmed that resuscitation trolleys and equipment were checked on a daily basis within the ED and CDU/ MAU. However, we did note that the majors area did not have dedicated emergency equipment. And, although it was in close proximity to the resuscitation area, the lack of emergency equipment in the majors area may have an impact on the staff’s ability to respond quickly.
Waiting times
In the last nine months the department had met the national target of seeing 95% of patients within four hours of arrival in the department. There had been instances when this did not happen – for example, in August 2013, due to high number of people attending the department. The department had also met the target for accepting handover of patients from ambulances within 15 minutes. and had one ambulance ‘black breach’ (where patient handovers took longer than one hour) documented within the first two quarters of 2013-2014.
Accident and emergency
On the two days we visited the department, all patientswere seen within the national target times and the department had a total of 700 people attend for treatment. The department was performing better than the other two emergency departments within the trust. The department was under pressure at times and the staff were responsive to fluctuating numbers of patients attending the department. Senior staff monitored patient flows and ensured that patients were seen promptly. The department was made aware of ambulances that were en route to the hospital and the approximate time they were expected to arrive. Staff told us this enabled them to respond to a sudden influx of ambulances. We observed, during an evening visit to the department, how staff responded to the early closure of the UCC which had resulted in a large increase of patients. We saw that staff took immediate action and additional staff were allocated to the assessment area to ensure that patients were assessed as promptly as possible.
The CDU/MAU
The CDU/MAU provides 25 beds for patients either needing admission by specialist teams or monitoring by the ED consultants. The senior staff monitor ‘decisions to admit’ times and move patients as quickly as possible. Staff told us that they always maintained 100% single-sex bays within the unit. We saw staff responding to the need to create ‘male’ beds for patients waiting in the ED by liaising with bed managers and moving patients to other wards to ensure that admissions from ED were not delayed.
Caring for children
Staff were able to respond quickly to the needs of children in an emergency situation. The paediatric ED had a high-dependency cubicle which was equipped to deal with children who became unwell. Staff told us that, if they were alerted to a child coming in by ambulance, staff from the paediatric department, senior consultants and
paediatrians responded to the emergency call. There was also an intercom system between the adult and paediatric areas for staff to get immediate assistance if required.
Accessible information
There was a variety of information available for patients. However, all the literature and signs were only in English, including signs directing people to the ED and other areas in the hospital. Newham had a high ethnic population and staff told us that they were able to access interpreters easily if required.
Are accident and emergency
services well-led?
The emergency department was well-led and there was sharing of practice across the trust’s emergency department units. There were some issues about the IT systems in use.
Leadership
Staff were motivated and worked well as a team. We saw that all grades of staff communicated well internally as well as with other departments across the hospital. The department was jointly managed with the Emergency Departments at the trust’s other hospitals. We saw evidence that, following the merger, the departments had begun to work more closely together. Recent consultant appointments had been cross-department and some initiatives, such as the ‘How to guides’, were being shared. The guides had been developed to inform staff on the appropriate actions and care/treatment pathways to follow and the contact numbers for referring patients to other services. Clinical leads were working clinically and managerially across hospitals. Learning was also beginning to be shared between the departments. However, staff we spoke with acknowledged that it will take time to develop this relationship to its full extent.
Accident and emergency
Managing quality and performance
The service monitored safety and the quality of care, and action was taken to address concerns. There was an electronic process for reporting and reviewing incidents or concerns. Although the department had not had a ‘Never Event’ (serious safety incidents that should not occur) and only one serious incident within the last three months, we saw that the appropriate investigations were carried out, learning identified, and any changes required implemented. For example, we saw an incident relating to the lack of follow-up on a young patient with a hand injury. The learning from this incident was reported in the department’s monthly governance report and shared with all the nursing and medical staff. The learning and appropriate care was clearly identified and protocols for the future management of such patients was highlighted. Regular quarterly joint clinical governance days took place across the three emergency departments in the trust to share learning and discuss improvements. We saw the attendance list from a recent day. This showed that staff from a range of nursing and medical backgrounds and grades had attended. Discussions had included a session on learning from recent serious incidents. Monthly clinical governance meetings were also held.
Information and technology system
There were some concerns raised by staff about the information-collection system for patient arrival and treatment times. We were told that, when the department is busy, data is not accurately recorded by staff. The system was described as “slow” and there were inaccuracies noted in the records. For example, we saw that one person had been seen within seven minutes of arrival by a doctor, but the assessment time on the computer showed a time some two hours later. Staff did not always record when a patient had left the department when it was very busy. Also, the three emergency
departments within the trust did not share the same computer system across the sites.
Medical care (including older people’s care)
Information about the service
We inspected Medical Care (including services for older people) at Newham University Hospital. We spoke to patients, relatives and staff in every area visited over the course of the two-day inspection. We visited seven medical wards including a stroke rehabilitation ward, elderly care wards and speciality specific wards.
Summary of findings
Overall care was safe and effective, and staff worked hard to ensure patient safety. The majority of patients were complimentary about their care and told us that most staff were kind and caring. There were concerns that nursing staff were sometimes unable to meet people’s needs due to staff absence and bank staff or agency cover could not be provided. Senior medical support to junior doctors at weekends was by a consultant on-call system and did not meet current professional guidance.
Quality and safety monitoring systems were in place and there was evidence that staff escalated incidents appropriately and received some feedback locally. Staff were not aware of shared learning from incidents/ investigations across the trust, which showed the dissemination of learning across the organisation was not effective.
Staff were supported by their line managers and had access to mandatory training and annual appraisals. Staff morale was low following a recent staffing review but we were impressed that staff remained committed to providing good services to patients at Newham Hospital.
Are medical care services safe?
Services were generally safe but there were issues around safe levels of staffing to meet patient dependency and safe storage of medicines.
Patient safety
There were electronic reporting systems in place and staff said they were encouraged by managers to use them to report incidents. There was a variable response from staff about the ease of use of the system. Staff told us that managers investigated incidents and they did receive feedback but this was variable. Some staff demonstrated that they were aware of learning from serious incidents or Never Events – incidents which should never happen. For example, they were able to explain changes in the procedure for checking the position of nasogastric tubes post insertion. They were not aware of incidents that had happened outside of their clinical academic group (CAG) or at other sites in the trust, showing that systems to share and spread learning from incidents across the whole trust were not effective.
Patients told us they felt safe and had confidence in the staff. Comments included: “I can’t complain,” “they treat me well” and “they are always here and they are good”. Most patients were complimentary about the care they received, with comments including, “they help me in every way” and “the staff are brilliant”.
Patients’ medical and nursing needs were initially assessed in the medical admissions ward and they were then moved to the appropriate ward for ongoing care and treatment. We saw examples of records that were fully completed and risks identified, including those relating to malnutrition, skin integrity and pressure damage, moving and handling, falls and (if needed) the use of equipment. Patients all had a care plan to manage their risks.
Staffing
There were sufficient medical staff to meet the needs of patients; however, there were fewer medical staff on duty at night and weekends. Junior doctors reported that they were well supported by their consultants and registrars. There was an on-call consultant at weekends which junior staff said was “no problem”, however, this did not follow professional guidance which required 12-hour onsite consultant presence. Staff told us that consultants did come in to support junior medical staff if they had concerns. We were also told there were structured
handovers twice a day for medical staff to discuss patients, but we also saw evidence of doctors coming on to wards
Medical care (including older people’s care)
with no formal handover. We saw the patient list providedat handover which detailed the patient’s name, medical history, reason for admission, results of most recent tests, their progress and outstanding tasks relating to the patient’s care. It also noted those patients who were not for resuscitation or were receiving end of life care. The list also included an expected date of discharge.
There had been a recent review of staffing and we were told that nurse staffing levels met professional guidelines. Staff told us there was a process in place to book overtime (bank) or agency nurses to cover short notice staff
absence. Staff reported the system had recently changed and was fairly onerous. They said by the time permissions and bookings had been made, the additional staff were often unavailable to fill the shift. We were told that shifts identified early were more likely to be filled. Weekend absence and short notice bookings were those least likely to be filled.
Staffing levels on the wards did not always meet the number needed to provide safe care to patients, especially when shifts had not been filled. For example, on one ward we observed the matron was based on the ward to provide care to patients and ‘plug the gap’ as three staff had called in sick at short notice and the shifts couldn’t all be filled. Nurse handovers were ward-based and included discussions about all patients in detail. There was a daily matron’s bed meeting to review bed management, share staff around the wards if needed, and any other site management concerns.
Ward-based staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure patients received appropriate care and support, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians, pharmacists and speech and
language therapists. We saw there was a ward-based gym and occupational therapy kitchen on the stroke ward to facilitate patient recovery.
There were systems in place to ensure patients received appropriate help and support with their nutritional intake. All of the wards we visited had established protected mealtimes, and red trays were used to identify those patients who needed support to eat and drink. Patients had a choice of food and there were menus to meet the religious and cultural requirements of the
specialists when needed – for example, the dietitian or speech and language therapists for dietary advice and swallowing assessments.
Managing risks
There were systems in place to monitor the risks to patients. Patient’s records showed the risks of developing pressure-related skin damage, and blood clots and infections were appropriately managed. We saw the hospital had implemented the Newham Quality Assurance System (NQAS) to monitor and report on a range of safety indicators. Charts were used with green and red crosses to indicate good or poor performance ratings (the Safety Cross system) relating to falls, hospital acquired pressure ulcers and other criteria. These were displayed on noticeboards in every ward we visited, although it was noticeable that, in some wards, only the positive (green cross) results were made public. The results of this monitoring was discussed weekly at a meeting of ward managers and matrons to share best practice and learning. We also saw the results were fed into an integrated
performance report so the CAG and ward managers could access all the metrics for their area.
Hospital infections
Patients were protected from the risk of infection. Medical wards were clean and standards were monitored. Notices at the entrance to wards advised visitors to use hand gel prior to entry and on leaving. There were hand-washing facilities with soap and towels in every area and hand gel was stationed at sinks and at each patient’s bed as well as on notes trolleys. We observed that staff washed their hands and used gel in-between attending patients. Personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons was available. There was signage displayed on side room doors where patients were being isolated and staff were observed to follow the associated instructions.
Medical equipment
Medical equipment was adequately maintained, although staff reported there were some delays and equipment was taken out of use for extended periods of time. We found staff had access to pressure-relieving mattresses for patients identified as being at risk of developing pressure ulcers. It was noted on one ward that the medical store room door was propped open as agency/bank staff did
Medical care (including older people’s care)
Safeguarding procedures
The trust had processes in place to identify people at risk – for example, the use of flags on the patient electronic record and ‘passports of care’ for people with learning disabilities. There were also established processes to refer safeguarding concerns to the local authority. The Chief Nurse was responsible for safeguarding in the trust and there were regular meetings held with safeguarding leads to review policies and procedures, safeguarding training and ongoing safeguarding concerns. We saw the trust had developed assurance frameworks for safeguarding processes and the trust had discharged its duties to complete a Section 11 audit and action plan demonstrating its compliance with Section 11 of the Children Act.
Medicines management
We visited Plashet Ward and looked at medicines storage and supplies, records relating to people’s medicines and talked to pharmacy staff and nurses.
Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the recording of the administration of medicines. All allergies were documented and we saw no missing doses. There was provision for nursing staff to record if a dose had been missed or delayed and the reason.
Medicines were available when people needed them. Appropriate arrangements were in place for obtaining medicines. We saw that prescribed medicines were available; there was a weekly pharmacy top-up service and a daily weekday visit from a ward pharmacist. The pharmacy was open at weekends between 10am and 2pm and there was a pharmacist on call out of hours. There was evidence of medicines reconciliation on admission. There is no policy to allow patients to self-administer their own medicines if they request to do so, however, we saw patients self-administering their own insulin. Medicines were available on the ward and suitably labelled to allow nursing staff to discharge patients out of hours. Emergency medicines were kept on the ward and they were being checked regularly. There was evidence of routine checking of controlled drugs and a register of patients’ own controlled drugs.
There was a risk that unauthorised people could access some medicines. Medicines were not securely stored. There was no control of access to the clean utility room where infusions solutions were kept in boxes below the bench. Oral medications and injections were in locked cupboards. Medicines requiring cold storage were kept in a fridge and the temperature was monitored, however, the fridge was not locked. One patient’s medicines were stored on top of the fridge and not in the designated locked cupboard.
Are medical care services effective?
Services were generally effective, patient treatment and care followed national guidelines.
Clinical management and guidelines
Patients received care according to national guidelines. The trust participated in national audits and standards of care were ‘within expectations’ for the majority of specialities in medicine, for example, respiratory conditions care and stroke.
We looked at a number of patient records across the medical wards. Patients had all been assessed and had a plan of care to meet their identified needs and mitigate risks. There were records of all staff interventions in patient notes. The majority of patients we spoke with said they were happy with their care and knew what was happening. Patients were aware of the next steps in their treatment/ care. For example, one person told us they were to be transferred to another site for a procedure, another said they were being discharged and staff had discussed their ongoing ability to manage at home.
There was evidence of multidisciplinary working and meetings to coordinate care and treatment across the medical specialities. Staff of all disciplines attended and relatives on the stroke ward told us they were also invited to participate in the discussions about their relative with the multidisciplinary team. Junior medical staff reported they spent a lot of time arranging intersite transfers for patients with deteriorating health. They told us there were delays to patient’s treatment at times because the bed managers could not identify a bed in a suitable ward.
Medical care (including older people’s care)
Patients with dementia
The Older People’s Liaison Service (OPLS) was jointly provided with the neighbouring mental health trust and gave advice, support and carried out assessments for patients over the age of 65 with memory problems. Patients were referred directly to OPLS and, in addition, the Consultant Nurse Lead attended the elderly care multidisciplinary team meetings and identified patients who would benefit from their input. The team provided support to patients and their carers to ensure they had access to specialist services and support once discharged into the community. Staff valued the support OPLS provided in the ward setting to enable them to provide care to patients with a diagnosis of dementia.
The trust had published a dementia strategy developed by the Dementia Strategy Group led by the Consultant Nurse for Older People. The group had ambitions to implement a trust recognition symbol which would alert staff to patients with special needs due to dementia. We were told the electronic patient record at Newham would identify when patients had a diagnosis of dementia or any other type of special need.
Patient mortality
We reviewed our surveillance information about the trust and the data showed there was no evidence of risk identified at Newham University Hospital. We were told that Mortality meetings were due to commence in the CAG to review patient deaths.
Are medical care services caring?
Services were generally caring and patients recognised the majority of staff were kind and caring. There were some issues about staff attitude toward relatives and the quality and variety of food available.
Patient feedback
The majority of patients and visitors we spoke with felt they were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Most were complimentary about staff and mentioned staff who were particularly kind to them. We were told staff were abrupt on occasion and appeared not to listen to people. Relatives of one elderly patient told us, “Only XX listens to us, none of the others do. When we try to explain they
At the listening event we held for Newham Hospital, one person told us of staff talking over their relative while delivering care. They also said staff were, on occasion, rude and answered their personal mobile phones while with a patient. People told us they “weren’t in a position to complain”.
Patient treatment, privacy and dignity
Staff treated patients with dignity and respect. Staff interactions with patients were observed to be overall kind, patient and professional. Personal care was delivered discreetly behind closed curtains. Care records showed some people had been involved in planning their care, but not all.
Patients told us they were able to talk to staff about their treatment and care. Comments included: “They asked lots of questions and did tests, then told me what was wrong and what the treatment could be if I agreed”.
Food and drink
Patients had adequate nutrition and hydration and, if required, were supported to eat meals. We observed breakfast and lunch in several wards. Patients were supported to choose their meal. We saw drinks were available and most were left within reach of the patient. A red tray was used to identify patients who needed help to eat or needed their intake monitored. Staff were observed providing assistance and food and fluid r
